Marquette
8140 Township Line Rd, Indianapolis, IN 46260 · Non profit - Corporation · 57 certified beds · (317) 875-9700 Medicare only — no Medicaid
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.2% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.6% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.1% | 23.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 3.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.5% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.2% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.7% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.7% | 10.8% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.35 | 1.44 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
66.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 261 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 96 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.58 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 66.8%CMS range 60.9–72.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.3%CMS range 6.5–12.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 65.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 76.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 49.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.7%CMS range 3.1–8.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 57 beds and averages 53.2 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.43 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.83 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.74 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.67 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.99 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-06-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure hospital recommendations related to transfers were followed to ensure a resident was free of accidents for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B) This deficient practice resulted in Resident B sustaining an acute distal tibia fracture (a break in the lower end of the tibia, often near the ankle joint). Findings include: During an observation, on 6/10/25 at 10:43 a.m., Resident B was sitting in a wheelchair, her right lower extremity was noted to be in a cast, and she was wearing a brace around her mid-section. A facility reported incident (FRI) indicated, on 5/21/25, the CNA assisted Resident B with ambulating to the toilet. During ambulation, the resident fell toward her right side and her right ankle appeared to roll. Resident B voiced complaints of right ankle pain. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 6/10/25 at 10:20 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, wedge compression fracture of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. An Indiana Department of Health Intake Information report indicated Resident B had been dropped after a staff member improperly secured him to a lift. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 1/16/24 at 11:23 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, idiopathic autonomic neuropathy, and ataxic gait. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/28/23, indicated the resident did not experience cognitive impairment. Section GG (functional abilities and goals) indicated the resident required partial/moderate assistance with toilet transfers and the helper did less than half of the effort. A nursing progress note, dated 8/12/23 at 10:00 a.m., indicated the CNA 3 notified LPN 2 the resident was on the floor in his bathroom. The CNA indicated while transferring him on the sit-to-stand lift from the toilet, the resident fell off the stand-up lift. The resident was laying on his right side with the back of his…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-02 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notices of discharges to resident representatives or notices to the ombudsman for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization and discharge. (Resident 3, 58 and 60) The deficient practice was corrected on 1/16/26, prior to the start of the survey, and therefore was past noncompliance.Findings include:1. The clinical record for Resident 3 was reviewed on 1/29/26 at 9:32 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, pneumonia, atrial flutter, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, malignant neoplasm of colon, and obstructive and reflux uropathy.A nursing progress note, dated 5/30/25 at 7:37 a.m., indicated the resident was transferred to the emergency room at 6:30 a.m. and the daughter was notified verbally. The note did not indicate the daughter received a written notice at any point after the transfer.During an interview, on 2/2/26 at 3:18 p.m., the Social Services Director indicated the facility went over transfers in the morning meeting and discussed people who were sent out. They brought the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNOC) document and a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) document prior to the end of service date for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary notification. (Resident 44) Findings include: The NOMNOC and SNF ABN documents for Resident 44 were reviewed on 2/4/25 at 8:50 a.m. a. The NOMNOC document indicated Resident 44's Medicare Part A coverage of services would end on 8/22/24 and Medicare would not pay for the current Medicare skilled services after the date of 8/22/24. The document indicated Resident 44 had the right to request an appeal. The appeal would need to be requested no later than noon of the day before the effective end of service date of 8/22/24. Resident 44 was provided with the NOMNOC document on 9/9/24, 13 days after the end of service date. b. The SNF ABN document indicated Resident 44's Medicare Part A Skilled coverage of services would end on 8/21/24 and beginning on 8/23/24, the services of Physical Therapy and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure privacy was provided during a medication administration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for privacy. (Resident 19) Findings include: During an observation, on 1/30/25 at 10:41 a.m., Resident 19 was sitting in a wheelchair on her side of a shared room. QMA 5 was observed to administer eye drops to Resident 19. The privacy curtain had not been pulled to obscure the view of a visitor on the other side of the shared room. The visitor had an unobstructed view of the care being provided to Resident 19. At that time, QMA 5 indicated the privacy curtain should have been closed when providing all care. During an interview, on 2/4/25 at 3:19 p.m., the Director of Nursing indicated the facility followed the state and federal regulations. A current facility policy, titled Resident Rights, dated as revised in February 2021 and received from the Director of Nursing on 1/31/25 at 8:55 a.m., indicated .Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plan meetings were scheduled with the resident and/or resident's representative for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for care plan meetings. (Resident 36 and 37) Findings include: 1. During an interview, on 1/30/25 at 10:33 a.m., a family member for Resident 36 indicated they had not attended a care plan meeting for a year. The clinical record for Resident 36 was reviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:11 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, severe dementia with mood disturbance, major depressive disorder, and mood disorder. The last documented care plan meetings were held on 3/14/24 and 6/28/24. 2. During an interview, on 1/30/25 at 10:29 a.m., a family member for Resident 37 indicated they had not had a care plan meeting in a year. The clinical record for Resident 37 was reviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:15 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, age-related physical debility, constipation, and pain. The last documented care plan meeting was held on 5/6/24. During an interview, on 2/3/25 at 9:12 a.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified when blood sugars were out of the physician ordered parameters for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for quality of care. (Resident 34) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 34 was reviewed on 2/3/25 at 1:32 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes, edema, and chronic kidney disease. A physician's order, dated 7/8/24, indicated to obtain Accu Checks (blood sugar checks) 4 times a day and to call the physician when the blood sugars were less than 70 or greater than 400. A review of Resident 34's blood sugars indicated the following results: On 12/18/24, the resident's blood sugar was 69. On 12/28/24, the resident's blood sugar was 65. On 12/28/24, the resident's blood sugar was 425. On 1/5/25, the resident's blood sugar was 51. There was no documentation the physician was notified of the blood sugars which were out of the physician ordered parameters found in the resident's record. During an interview, on 2/4/25 at 3:18 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-05 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff obtained a resident's weight weekly to monitor for weight loss according to the physician's order and to correctly document the weights in the medical record for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 8) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 8 was reviewed on 2/4/25 at 1:29 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Barrette's esophagus, anorexia, and nutritional deficiency. A nutritional note, dated 9/12/24, indicated the Registered Dietitian (RD) recommended to begin weekly weights for closer weight loss monitoring. A progress note, dated 9/12/24, indicated a new order had been placed for weekly weights. A physician's order indicated Resident 8 was to be weighed weekly in the morning, every Monday, for weight loss starting 9/16/24. A nutritional note, dated 11/7/24, indicated the RD would continue weekly weights for closer monitoring and would follow up with Resident 8's intakes, weekly weights, and labs as available. The resident's medical record was missing documentation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was clear and accurate related to the correct oxygen liter flow rate for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident 10) Findings include: During an observation, on 1/31/25 at 9:58 a.m., Resident 10's oxygen flow rate was on 2-liters. The clinical record for Resident 10 was reviewed on 2/3/25 at 1:30 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic obstructed pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, and essential hypertension. A physician's order, dated 1/8/25, indicated the oxygen flow rate was to be at 4 liters per minute via nasal cannula. The order summary indicated the oxygen flow rate was to be at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. The order had 2 different oxygen liter flow rates. During an interview, on 2/3/25 at 1:48 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 indicated the oxygen order was not a titration order. She thought the resident was to be on 4 liters but did not see the 2 liters listed in the order summary. She would have to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a two (2) handle cup was available for a resident's coffee for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for adaptive equipment. (Resident 1) Findings include: During an observation of the morning meal, on 2/3/25 at 8:35 a.m., Resident 1 was observed in the dining room. She had two handle cups for her milk, juice and water with lids, but an insulated cup with only one handle for coffee. During an interview, on 2/3/25 at 8:25 a.m., the Dietary Manager (DM) indicated she was aware the resident needed two (2) handle cups for her drinks, but she did not think about the coffee and the facility did not have a two-handle insulated cup. The therapy department indicated the resident needed two handle cups to hold the cup better. She would need to talk with management because the facility would need to order the cup. During an observation, on 2/5/25 at 8:33 a.m., Resident 1 was in the dining room eating her meal without assistance. She was noted to have milk, juice and water in two handle cups, but no coffee. During an interview,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure documentation was complete and accurately reflected the care provided for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for accurate documentation. (Resident 46 and 1) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 46 was reviewed on 2/5/25 at 10:19 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, insomnia, chronic kidney disease, and fever. A physician's order, initiated on 1/3/25, indicated to give Dayvigo (a medication used to treat insomnia) 10 milligrams at bedtime for insomnia. Documentation of the administration of the medication was not charted on 1/10/25 and 1/25/25. A physician's order, initiated on 1/3/25, indicated to monitor the resident's vital signs twice a day. Documentation of the treatment was not charted on the Medication and Treatment record for 1/31/25 for the second shift. 2. The clinical record for Resident 1 was reviewed on 2/5/25 at 8:53 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, weakness, heart failure, and a need for assistance with personal care. A physician's order, initiated on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-01-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was dated and a physician's order for oxygen was obtained for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Residents 6, 41, 206 and 10). Findings include: 1. During an observation, on 1/11/24 at 1:53 p.m., the oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle for Resident 6 was not dated. The record for Resident 6 was reviewed on 1/16/24 at 10:23 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, shortness of breath, history of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and unspecified congestive heart failure. A current order, with a start date of 11/2/23, indicated to change and date oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle in the evenings every Wednesday. During an interview, on 1/11/24 at 2:46 p.m., the Clinical Support Nurse indicated the oxygen tubing was not dated. 2. During an observation, on 1/11/24 at 2:38 p.m., Resident 41 was wearing oxygen, and the oxygen tubing was not dated. The record for Resident 41 was reviewed on 1/16/24 at 9:22 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the bed hold policy was provided to the resident and/or responsible party at the time of the hospital transfer for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident 54) Finding includes: The record for Resident 54 was reviewed on 1/18/24 at 2:34 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, acute respiratory failure, congestive heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery (a narrowing of the artery), hypertensive heart, and chronic kidney disease. A nursing progress note dated 11/16/23 at 10:41 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 indicated the resident had an oxygen saturation of 65 to 78 percent on 4 liters of oxygen. The resident was tired with rapid breathing, shaking, and back pain. The Nurse Practitioner was called, and an order was received to send the resident to the hospital for evaluation. The resident's daughter who was also the resident's power of attorney was called and updated on the resident's condition and the order to transfer the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with compression gloves had a physician's order, a care plan and staff were educated on the use of the compression gloves for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for edema (Resident B), and failed to ensure an unlicensed staff member did not move a resident before reporting an incident and having the resident assessed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident C) Findings include: 1. During an observation, on 1/11/24 at 12:09 p.m., the Resident B was noted to have edema in his hands with compression gloves on both hands. During an observation, on 1/16/24 at 2:29 p.m., the resident did not have compression gloves on his hands. His bilateral hands are edematous. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 1/16/24 at 11:23 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, and idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy. There was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a significant weight change and a 5 pound or more weight gain per the physician's orders for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident D and 26) Findings include: 1. The record for Resident D was reviewed on 1/16/24 at 2:29 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, muscle weakness, pain, anxiety disorder, and depression. A care plan indicated the resident was at nutrition risk. The interventions included, but were not limited to, monitor weights as ordered. The resident had the following weights: 1. On 10/22/23, the resident's weight was 109.0 pounds. 2. On 1/8/24, the resident's weight was 95.0 pounds. The resident had a 12.84% weight loss in 3 months. There was no documentation of the physician being notified of the significant weight loss. A nursing progress note, dated as a late entry on 1/16/24 at 1:00 p.m., indicated the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) discussed the resident's weight loss and no new orders were received. During an interview, on 1/16/24 at 4:35 p.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE SERVICES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RETIREMENT LIVING INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/10/2010 |
| BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 06/10/2010 |
| BORGERT, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| BREEN, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BREHM, JAY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2026 |
| BROWN, CONSTANCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| HIRSCHMAN, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| MALLON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| SCHAEFER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| TURNER, WAYNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/10/2024 |
| WAY, BARRETT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| WILSON, NICHOLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| BICE, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BLUNT, CAMILLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| MAHONEY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/05/2023 |
| SCHEID, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| LIFE CARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| COX, JEFFREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2015 |
| KLEIN, TRENTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/04/2026 |
| MUSTAKLEM, MARWAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IN
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Indiana Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 155198. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-02, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.